what a load of Snowflake shit 

a 82 Year old lady ask someone where  she was From 

Like me asking a bird in town where you from     Bolton 

Yes but Where  Great Lever 

 

i was on a job about a month ago 

a Black man haveing a chat 

 i ask where you from..........  He said Jamaica

i said no you daft bastard  ( He had a Manc Acent ) where in manchester 

World has gone mad 

 

52 minutes ago, Duck Egg said:

Morgan was named by Jeremy Paxman in the original Leveson inquiry, as showing him how they hacked voicemails. Poor Jezzas health would prevent that evidence from ever getting heard in court now.  Morgan was also cleared in the city slickers scandal, where his paper were promoting stocks that he held and was then, by strange coincidence flogging them off when their values shot up temporarily.

He's one slippery fecker.

Aye, and all the more reason that anyone having a pop at him should be careful. 

Distasteful at times, reasonable others, but he is sharp and I'm quite surprised at the level of animosity in his statement. It was almost a "bring it on" comment.

 

3 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Back to the topic.

Harry won some of his claims against the mirror group.

Piers Morgan just made a verbal statement live. 

Fucking hell, like him or loathe him, he's come out swinging. Remarkable. 

He’s a bullshitting cock. 

Cracking little speech that.

Morgan is a cunt.

A C.Ronaldo bumming cunt.

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Aye, and all the more reason that anyone having a pop at him should be careful. 

Distasteful at times, reasonable others, but he is sharp and I'm quite surprised at the level of animosity in his statement. It was almost a "bring it on" comment.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/piers-morgan-defends-mirror-and-launches-scathing-attack-against-prince-harry-13031082

Morgan's on the ropes there 

His best retort is to accuse harry of trying to destroy the monarchy 

I think we all know Harry will never destroy the monarchy

But he says it to deflect and get Harry haters and monarchy lovers on his side and try to get them to forget that, once again, a paper under his stewardship, has been found to be hacking phones 

There's nothing to bring on 

He owes Harry 140k

44 minutes ago, DazBob said:

Morgan is a cunt.

A C.Ronaldo bumming cunt.

He really is

25 minutes ago, Zico said:

https://news.sky.com/story/piers-morgan-defends-mirror-and-launches-scathing-attack-against-prince-harry-13031082

Morgan's on the ropes there 

His best retort is to accuse harry of trying to destroy the monarchy 

I think we all know Harry will never destroy the monarchy

But he says it to deflect and get Harry haters and monarchy lovers on his side and try to get them to forget that, once again, a paper under his stewardship, has been found to be hacking phones 

There's nothing to bring on 

He owes Harry 140k

That's the issue. He hasn't.

He doesn't pay the money neither, the group does.

It's been alleged that he knew about the hacking. Morgan denies it.

Irrespective of whether he did or not, its yet another instance of being found guilty by the court of public.

The lawyer etc should present evidence to the police etc.

if they dont, then Morgan may look to sue, who knows.

Both the lawyer and Morgan making accusations; one or both could be lying. 

On that basis there's plenty to go to court over, should either so choose. 

Morgan's been obsessed with them for a while now, especially with Meghan. 

He's a poorly man Piers

1 minute ago, L/H White said:

Morgan's been obsessed with them for a while now, especially with Meghan. 

He's a poorly man Piers

On them two, he has a point.

You wouldn't trust any of the three of them.

16 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

That's the issue. He hasn't.

He doesn't pay the money neither, the group does.

It's been alleged that he knew about the hacking. Morgan denies it.

Irrespective of whether he did or not, its yet another instance of being found guilty by the court of public.

The lawyer etc should present evidence to the police etc.

if they dont, then Morgan may look to sue, who knows.

Both the lawyer and Morgan making accusations; one or both could be lying. 

On that basis there's plenty to go to court over, should either so choose. 

A high court judge has just said there could be “no doubt” that Piers Morgan, knew about hacking.    
 

Morgan is suing no fucker. 

Edited December 15, 20232 yr by mickbrown

5 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Back to the topic.

Harry won some of his claims against the mirror group.

Piers Morgan just made a verbal statement live. 

Fucking hell, like him or loathe him, he's come out swinging. Remarkable. 

THE MAN IS A CUNT 

of the Highst Order

11 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

That's the issue. He hasn't.

He doesn't pay the money neither, the group does.

It's been alleged that he knew about the hacking. Morgan denies it.

Irrespective of whether he did or not, its yet another instance of being found guilty by the court of public.

The lawyer etc should present evidence to the police etc.

if they dont, then Morgan may look to sue, who knows.

Both the lawyer and Morgan making accusations; one or both could be lying. 

On that basis there's plenty to go to court over, should either so choose. 

He's been found guilty in a court of law, albeit on the balance of probabilities

13 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

That's the issue. He hasn't.

He doesn't pay the money neither, the group does.

It's been alleged that he knew about the hacking. Morgan denies it.

Irrespective of whether he did or not, its yet another instance of being found guilty by the court of public.

The lawyer etc should present evidence to the police etc.

if they dont, then Morgan may look to sue, who knows.

Both the lawyer and Morgan making accusations; one or both could be lying. 

On that basis there's plenty to go to court over, should either so choose. 

Its not been alledged. Hes not been found guilty in tthe court of public.

The judge has said this. He's been found guilty in, you know, an actual court.

it is now a matter of public record, unless Morgan goes to court to disprove this.

 

Unless he is able to rewrite the legal process, and sue a judge.

Just now, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

He's been found guilty in a court of law, albeit on the balance of probabilities

How do you work that out?

He wasn't even in court, nor the subject of the case. It was Harry taking the mirror group to court.

During/after the case, it was said that Morgan must have known- that is simply an accusation, and may well be true. The action itself wasn't against him as an individual though, and he personally hasn't been found guilty of anything. 

Not being in court, and able to give evidence was part of his beef.

That's why he should be reported to the police for proper investigation. 

Just now, ZiggyStardust said:

Its not been alledged. Hes not been found guilty in tthe court of public.

The judge has said this. He's been found guilty in, you know, an actual court.

it is now a matter of public record, unless Morgan goes to court to disprove this.

 

Unless he is able to rewrite the legal process, and sue a judge.

See above. 

Yes the judge said it, but he Morgan wasn't the accused.

It is indeed public record- that's why I said he was angry and it will be interesting to see if he chooses to defend himself.

 

1 minute ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

See above. 

Yes the judge said it, but he Morgan wasn't the accused.

It is indeed public record- that's why I said he was angry and it will be interesting to see if he chooses to defend himself.

How? Sue a high court judge?

Good luck with that. 

4 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

How do you work that out?

Because the judge, having considered the evidence presented before the court, determined that on the balance of probabilities he knew

7 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Because the judge, having considered the evidence presented before the court, determined that on the balance of probabilities he knew

That isn't the same as being found legally guilty in a court of law.

Whatsoever. 

No person can be found guilty of anything, if they're not even the subject of a case, let alone not invited to give evidence in defence 

Perhaps the judge's comments were an provocation aimed at getting Morgan to do something, so that it can be aired, I don't know.

2 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

That isn't the same as being found legally guilty in a court of law.

Whatsoever. 

No person can be found guilty of anything, if they're not even the subject of a case, let alone not invited to give evidence in defence 

Perhaps the judge's comments were an provocation aimed at getting Morgan to do something, so that it can be aired, I don't know.

The burden of proof is lower than the burden of proof in criminal law, however the judge ruled that he knew about the hacking of voicemails

The word guilty has a colloquial as well as legal usage 

44 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

That's the issue. He hasn't.

He doesn't pay the money neither, the group does.

It's been alleged that he knew about the hacking. Morgan denies it.

Irrespective of whether he did or not, its yet another instance of being found guilty by the court of public.

The lawyer etc should present evidence to the police etc.

if they dont, then Morgan may look to sue, who knows.

Both the lawyer and Morgan making accusations; one or both could be lying. 

On that basis there's plenty to go to court over, should either so choose. 

Ok, he himself has not been found guilty of the actual hacking 

But a court has ruled that he knew it was going on 

He can't sue a court 

All he can do now is deny it

And deflect 

Which is what he's doing  

The fact is the court says he knew

There's a video of him above saying he knows how it's done 

His paper more than once has been found to have been hacking phones 

Yet he says he knows nothing on this occasion

He's full of shit 

 

 

Just now, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

The burden of proof is lower than the burden of proof in criminal law, however the judge ruled that he knew about the hacking of voicemails

The word guilty has a colloquial as well as legal usage 

Of course it does. Nevertheless it hasn't been proven, and the judge's words weren't absolute. Perhaps for a reason. 

That's why he is so explicit in his own statement about not being able to be present and give testimony.

He also accuses Scobie of lying in court which is a very strong accusation in return.

Again, without proof, maybe Morgan could be subject to action. 

There are a lot of comments and statements to be picked over, by all sides. 

Whether that will yield further action, we don't know.

Anyway:

 

4 minutes ago, Zico said:

Ok, he himself has not been found guilty of the actual hacking 

But a court has ruled that he knew it was going on 

He can't sue a court 

All he can do now is deny it

And deflect 

Which is what he's doing  

The fact is the court says he knew

There's a video of him above saying he knows how it's done 

His paper more than once has been found to have been hacking phones 

Yet he says he knows nothing on this occasion

He's full of shit 

 

 

And guilty

3 minutes ago, Zico said:

Ok, he himself has not been found guilty of the actual hacking 

But a court has ruled that he knew it was going on 

He can't sue a court 

All he can do now is deny it

And deflect 

Which is what he's doing  

The fact is the court says he knew

There's a video of him above saying he knows how it's done 

His paper more than once has been found to have been hacking phones 

Yet he says he knows nothing on this occasion

He's full of shit 

 

 

I did wonder if a judge can be sued for something he says in court, and you're right he can't.

The rest I'm not disagreeing with.